Windows 8 and the disappearance of the Start button

Windows 8 is designed to be accessible for finger and mouse users alike. But …

Though Microsoft may yet have some trick up its sleeve, there's a growing body of evidence from leaked screenshots that Windows 8's taskbar will omit one mainstay of the Windows user interface: the Start button. To get to the Start menu's replacement (the "Start screen") from the desktop, you can press the Windows key on your keyboard, hit the hardware Windows key if your tablet has one, swipe your touch-screen from the side, or, if you have a mouse, move it to the bottom-left corner or right-hand edge. What you won't be able to do is actually click or tap a permanently-visible Start button on the taskbar.

The rumor may or may not turn out to be true, but if it is, we shouldn't be surprised. That's because you've entered the Metro zone, where the rules of human interaction have changed—and it's a change that will be felt not just by tablet users, but by traditional desktop denizens, too. Microsoft will need to tread carefully.

The Metro factor

From the outset, Microsoft designed Metro to be different from the Windows of old. Metro applications, downloaded and purchased through the Windows store, will eschew the Windows, Icons, Menus, and Pointers we're used to in favor of a new text-heavy, low-chrome, windowless Metro style.

The Metro aesthetic is essentially chromeless. The trappings of the traditional window—borders, title bars, permanently visible scrollbars, toolbars—are gone or at least substantially scaled back. Instead, we get much more emphasis on the use of, for example, juxtaposition and layout to convey information. Metro doesn't do away with chrome entirely (it still has buttons, etc.), but the chrome is much reduced compared to desktop Windows.

With the new aesthetic comes a new attitude towards user interaction. Traditionally, Windows has only used a small repertoire of learned interactions: click, double click, right click, drag-select, drag-and-drop. Almost everything else is visually cued on-screen. With Metro, a whole bunch of extra learned interactions are necessary, and the number of visual cues is greatly reduced.

Windows 8's gesture vocabulary is for the most part simple, with swipes and taps being the essential operations. The most important uses for these actions are swipe from the left and right edges of the screen (to task switch and bring up the "charms," respectively), and from the top or bottom (to bring up toolbars). Applications can be closed by dragging them off the bottom of the screen. Then there are some smaller gestures, like nudging items on the Start screen to select them for editing. But many of these interactions won't be prompted; they must be learned.

The swipe gestures to switch between applications, bring up the charms, or close tasks—none of these have any on-screen prompting. Nor do elements of the touch vernacular like "pinch zoom" (depending on form factor, at least; pinch zoom is peculiar on a phone that's mostly held and used one-handed, much more obvious on a tablet that's held and used two-handed).

It's possible that Windows 8 will have some kind of a tutorial, as Windows 3.1 once did, but this is unlikely. Such tutorials are not exactly fashionable, and the competition doesn't have to teach users how to use the platform (in spite of some non-obvious commands, such as "double tap home button" and "long hold").

Explicit versus implicit

It seems almost laughable today, but Windows 3.1 included a tutorial to explain how to use the mouse. Windows 95 didn't have the mouse tutorial. By 1995, mice were common enough to take mousing skills for granted, but it did have to teach users all the same. To encourage users to click the Start button, a bouncing message, "Click here to begin," would slide along the taskbar if the user didn't do anything after starting the operating system. Even the "Start" name itself was a bid to lure users into clicking; early prototypes had an unlabeled button.

Windows 95's "Click here to begin."

The bouncing prompt didn't survive past Windows 95, and even the Start label was finally dropped in Windows Vista; the Windows logo on the left-hand side of the taskbar was enough of a cue that people knew to click it. Windows 7 has all manner of hidden, unprompted user interface elements. Some are new, such as the jump lists that appear when you right click a taskbar button, and others old and long-standing, such as the alt-tab application switcher.

The trend to strip away explicit visual cues and rely more heavily on a common set of learned interactions is not a new one, but Metro is more extreme in this regard than any prior Windows version (though not substantially more extreme than other tablet platforms). It's an industry-wide trend.

The upside to this is slicker, lighter user interfaces. On some level, it's silly to waste screen space on user interface gadgets that prompt us to do things we know how to do anyway. For desktop machines with big screens, perhaps an X in the top right corner of every window is a small price to pay. But on a tablet (or a smartphone) where the constraints are much tighter (and where accidental presses are much more likely), a gestural method of closing applications saves precious pixels.

Learned versus intuitive

For actions that we do day in, day out, these prompts and on-screen cues are more than just a waste of space. They're straight up pointless. I don't need an on-screen cue to know where to resize a window, for example, because I know the border is where I resize the window. Windows 7's fat window borders, showing me where to grab hold of them to resize, are wasting space and telling me nothing I don't already know. A Mac OS X 10.7-style non-existent border would work just as well.

These basic interactions are all learned. It might seem "unintuitive" that Mac OS X 10.7 lets you grab a window border that "isn't there," but in practice it doesn't matter: we learn the interface and move on.

The learned interface no longer needs to be cluttered with affordances: visual cues that there's some interactive, functional item on the screen. There is no need for borders to "grab hold of," or of raised, pseudo-3D buttons to "depress."

There are many who'd argue that we learn every interface (except, perhaps, the very first one we use), and for all the emphasis put on "intuitive" interfaces, the use of learned interactions is downright expected. An operating system released in 2012 that tried to teach people how to double click or use a mouse would be laughed at.

There's nothing wrong with learned UI as such. A learned interface no longer has to explain every aspect of its operation to users, and can be a lot more streamlined and efficient as a result. But affordances do provide a great degree of discoverability. Users know which bits of the interface to experiment with because they are familiar with the on-screen prompts that the interface provides.

And not every interface can be learned. Tasks that are rare and infrequent are poor candidates for learning. Perhaps the most extreme demonstration of this is the command line compared to a wizard interface. Wizards are designed to be unlearned interfaces; they should be used for processes that are only performed infrequently, and so have to explain terminology and guide unfamiliar users through the process. The command line provides no guidance or explanation, and it's only worth learning the esoterica of individual commands if you're going to use them regularly. But ultimately, once the learning hurdle has been overcome, the command line can be far more productive and flexible than the wizard interface.

438 Reader Comments

This can be condensed into "If you want to get anything done, don't use Metro", which is the one thing I'm trying to point out, and now you agree with me?

No, actually...it can't be condensed into that. Look, we're arguing on the internet, so all I have to go off of are your words, okay? You started insulting the "start screen". I believe I sufficiently detailed why I think your criticisms are factually incorrect. Now, you're trying to discuss "Metro" apps, and are implying that they are the same thing as Windows 8. The two are not analogous, and it's disingenuous to say they are. I'm going to continue to quote exactly what you said, and demonstrate why my responses speak to that. If you want to change the topic, then do so, but don't try to combine disparate conversations and claim we're talking about "Metro" as a whole.

I highly doubt you'll see certain apps be converted to WinRT ("Metro", in your parlance). Photoshop? AutoCAD? Avid? FinalCut? VisualStudio? These programs are incredibly complex, and wouldn't have a good future written in WinRT exclusively. But they're not being forced to be converted. They'll use the desktop, just like plenty of other programs will. So the programs whose interface and use dictate complexity will continue to use the same paradigm. So you LOSE NOTHING.

In some cases, WinRT is more effective (having my social feed on the side, and having my desktop in the "main" area, with several programs on it, for example, means I can drag any number of "sidebar" programs in, without disrupting my desktop layout. In others, it won't be. So yeah, there are plenty of reasons to use Metro. There's also plenty of reasons to use the desktop. It's a good thing you have both, eh?

Look Alex, I really appreciate you taking the time to enlighten me, but at the moment I just don't see it. Let's just say I still have some reservations. For me, there is no need to switch, Windows 7 suits me just fine and I'm not going to risk going with Windows 8, as it features more obstacles than solutions at the moment.

But perhaps it just needs more time to work, perhaps this is the way of the future, only time can tell.

This can be condensed into "If you want to get anything done, don't use Metro", which is the one thing I'm trying to point out, and now you agree with me?

That's not what you've been saying at all, because Metro is a subset of Win8, not the entirety of it. If you want to use the desktop, use the desktop. What you appear to be doing is railing against Win8 having a feature that you don't need to use. So, don't use it.

I want to not use it, but it seems it's interwoven with everything in a way that even the most basic of things will put the Metro interface in front of you from time to time, whether you like it or not. I want it turned off, forever. As that seems to be not possible, I'll skip Windows 8, as Windows 7 is exactly what I need, Windows 8 without the Metro.

Let's just keep it at that.

It'd really help if you could be more specific. What, exactly, do you mean when you say "even the most basic of things will put the Metro interface in front of you from time to time"? The Start Screen? Is that it? Are there other things or is that it? Note: I'm genuinely curious. You don't "need" a reason to not upgrade, but if you're trying to have a conversation about this, it's a lot harder when you're speaking in generalities. I mean, I could equally say "Windows 8 has so many new features, it'd be dumb NOT to upgrade". Now, first of all, I'd never say this, because there are about a billion good reasons not to upgrade, especially right at launch. But if I were to say that, then you'd be perfectly right to ask "well, what specific features are you talking about?" Because those features might be personally useful, but might have absolutely no rational, factual, universal truth, and my point wouldn't be worth anything because it's so imprecise.

Look Alex, I really appreciate you taking the time to enlighten me, but at the moment I just don't see it. Let's just say I still have some reservations. For me, there is no need to switch, Windows 7 suits me just fine and I'm not going to risk going with Windows 8, as it features more obstacles than solutions at the moment.

But perhaps it just needs more time to work, perhaps this is the way of the future, only time can tell.

Oh, no! I don't want to seem like I'm trying to convince you that switching to 8 is worth it. Hell, the price that Microsoft will likely end up charging for it? I'll likely end up telling people I know to wait for Service Pack 1, at bare minimum, and if they have 7, I'll tell them to stick with it until they buy a new computer. I'm gonna buy it because I'm a nerd and I like playing with new shiny's better than old shiny's. Force of habit.

At this point, if you don't HAVE TO upgrade to 8, I can't say that there are features that I think are MUST HAVE. I happen to like the live sign-in, the ability of the machine to store preferences in the cloud and that sort of thing. I like the new contracts concept as a whole, because I think it'll make cross-program interaction more fluid. Programs that use contracts will be more fluid, and so more programs have an incentive to use them, so the OS as a whole benefits (that's just an opinion, of course, we'll see if it plays out). I think the "snap" feature for WinRT programs is nice, and being able to have pretty much any program relegated to a fixed sized window on the side is useful (I've always done that with my IM clients if they offered the ability to be docked on a side), and being able to switch a number of programs into that slot will be useful (need a calculator? pull one in from the side and have it docked there, and then pull in your twitter client when you're done)

I also think all of these things will be most useful on tablets. That being said, I have not noticed problems when using it at my desktop. I think the absolute best thing that can be said about Windows 8 on the desktop (and one of the only reasons it might be worth upgrading for on your main PC) is that when combined with other Microsoft products (say, a tablet) it'll go very well together.

If you like what you have? KEEP IT! There's nothing wrong at all with that. Hell, if I wasn't the kind of guy who just likes new toys, I'd probably avoid this release myself.

How ironic. "Welcome to 1995" said by the man encouraging us to use the keyboard rather than the mouse. That's more like welcome to 1986.

The mouse was invented in 1963, derived from the trackball which was invented in 1952. These things are not new, but have served us well in our transition from text-only interfaces to our future interfaces. Mice are not the be-all and end-all of input devices. They're a stop gap, not a destination.

There will always be a place for mice, but their mainstream use is starting to decline. As more and more casual users stop buying desktops and move towards tablets and laptops, the mouse is going to be less and less useful. What the mouse does today can be replaced by combinations of touch, gesture, voice, motion, etc.

So far, voice is the only thing that's come close to doing what a keyboard can do, but it's clumsy and slow, and not everybody is comfortable vocalising everything they're doing in a crowded office.

You can cling to the past if you want, but don't pretend mice aren't on their way out. It's gonna take years, but their days of mainstream use is numbered.

As you said:

Quote:

I generally don't like touch interfaces (your hand covering what you're doing, no tactile feedback, smudgy screens) and haven't used Metro for touch, but for those of us with keyboards, Metro's perfect. It actually encourages keyboard use and more efficient ways of doing things.

As I said, I find it ironic that you are encouraging a keyboard over a mouse and yet think I'm clinging to the past.

1. In the evolution of human interface devices, the keyboard precedes the mouse. Those early displays didn't accommodate mouse functionality because when you had only 80 lines of ASCII on the screen, there's no way to actually point to anything. Once we had hi res displays with graphic UIs, selecting onscreen controls became important and the mouse is a great way to do it. This is nothing we don't already know. However...

2. The means by which a person selects an onscreen control may change from mouse to [other thing], but the underlying functionality of selection will be unchanged. Maybe it will be a fingertip, a finger motion, voice, whatever. But I can tell you what it won't be - the keyboard.

Summary: Tablets are designed to handle single tasks at a time, but the ability to sometimes run two apps side-by-side as demonstrated with Windows 8 is revolutionary.

I know we're talking tablets versus a PC, but come on - the last time I saw an article that described running two apps side by side as revolutionary, Reagan was in office. I wouldn't trumpet that feature as a reason to give up Windows 7 yet.

Summary: Tablets are designed to handle single tasks at a time, but the ability to sometimes run two apps side-by-side as demonstrated with Windows 8 is revolutionary.

I know we're talking tablets versus a PC, but come on - the last time I saw an article that described running two apps side by side as revolutionary, Reagan was in office. I wouldn't trumpet that feature as a reason to give up Windows 7 yet.

Nope, and you shouldn't! I actually disagree that it's "revolutionary" in and of itself. It's evolutionary. Side-by-side multi-tasking has existed for a long time. Making it finger-friendly is an evolution of that idea. It shouldn't be promoted as an "oh mah gawd" moment in technology. It's something that might set it aside from other tablets, however. (We'll see over the next year if the iPad or Android evolves some similar functionality).

The purpose of the link was not a broad "it's so freaking awesome", it was only meant as a narrow "yes, you can copy and paste from one metro app to another while they are both open."

It's priceless to see as these 2-3 Microsoft cheerleaders are literally SWEATING all over these pages when trying to convince people that 'noooo, it's NOT SHIT, it's just you and your bad habits and un-MS behavior and you need to change and you will like it!"

Oh God, you guys are truly pathetic - and just making our case (totally out-of-touch MS and these lunatic changes) even more obvious.

As I said, I find it ironic that you are encouraging a keyboard over a mouse and yet think I'm clinging to the past.

1. In the evolution of human interface devices, the keyboard precedes the mouse. Those early displays didn't accommodate mouse functionality because when you had only 80 lines of ASCII on the screen, there's no way to actually point to anything. Once we had hi res displays with graphic UIs, selecting onscreen controls became important and the mouse is a great way to do it. This is nothing we don't already know. However...

2. The means by which a person selects an onscreen control may change from mouse to [other thing], but the underlying functionality of selection will be unchanged. Maybe it will be a fingertip, a finger motion, voice, whatever. But I can tell you what it won't be - the keyboard.

Honestly, until we get to thought-control, all "old" inputs retain their functionality, we're simply adding to it, and "older" technologies can still be more efficient than new ones.

The mouse is great, but it has limitations. Same with touch, voice, or motion control. I like Siri a lot...but just because I can use it doesn't mean it's always the most effective. The "older" method of touch control is better most places. But, for text entry? Voice is catching up. Mice are more precise than touch, but touch is better at having multiple ways of interacting (look at all the things you can do based on the number of fingers you use in OS X) so sometimes, touch wins. Back to the point, while a mice might be faster than typing in commands to a CLI, keyboard shortcuts are faster in many cases than the same action by a mouse. For example, I use command+num when in chrome on my macbook to change tabs. Why? because it's faster than moving the mouse to a precise point. But, I use the trackpad to scroll on a page because it's faster than using the arrow keys. The same goes for Windows-- I can switch between open windows faster with alt+tab or Win+num than most people can with a mouse.

Being "stuck in the past", for me, has nothing to do with the technology you use, but the way in which you use it. If you're doing things the way that you learned them, even if there is a faster, more efficient way to do it, you're "stuck in the past"...specifically, you're stuck in your own past, when you learned things the first time.

This isn't to say "if you don't use keyboard shortcuts, you suck". It just means sometimes, the right tool for the job is the older one. I don't get a screwdriver to hammer in a nail (I assume screwdrivers are newer than hammers, but I'd actually love to learn more about it if someone can prove me wrong ).

It's priceless to see as these 2-3 Microsoft cheerleaders are literally SWEATING all over these pages when trying to convince people that 'noooo, it's NOT SHIT, it's just you and your bad habits and un-MS behavior and you need to change and you will like it!"

Oh God, you guys are truly pathetic - and just making our case (totally out-of-touch MS and these lunatic changes) even more obvious.

See folks, everyone hates the fact that companies add their product name to the signature file, but this is exactly why me using a "-sent from my Macbook Air" signature on every post could actually be useful.

Also, I believe you're mistaken as to the definition of the word "literally". For example, Windows 8 is not shit, literally. See, in my example, "literally" is used correctly. Because while it might be shit, metaphorically speaking, it certainly is not actually made of feces.

As I said, I find it ironic that you are encouraging a keyboard over a mouse and yet think I'm clinging to the past.

1. In the evolution of human interface devices, the keyboard precedes the mouse. Those early displays didn't accommodate mouse functionality because when you had only 80 lines of ASCII on the screen, there's no way to actually point to anything. Once we had hi res displays with graphic UIs, selecting onscreen controls became important and the mouse is a great way to do it. This is nothing we don't already know. However...

2. The means by which a person selects an onscreen control may change from mouse to [other thing], but the underlying functionality of selection will be unchanged. Maybe it will be a fingertip, a finger motion, voice, whatever. But I can tell you what it won't be - the keyboard.

Honestly, until we get to thought-control, all "old" inputs retain their functionality, we're simply adding to it, and "older" technologies can still be more efficient than new ones.

The mouse is great, but it has limitations. Same with touch, voice, or motion control. I like Siri a lot...but just because I can use it doesn't mean it's always the most effective. The "older" method of touch control is better most places. But, for text entry? Voice is catching up. Mice are more precise than touch, but touch is better at having multiple ways of interacting (look at all the things you can do based on the number of fingers you use in OS X) so sometimes, touch wins. Back to the point, while a mice might be faster than typing in commands to a CLI, keyboard shortcuts are faster in many cases than the same action by a mouse. For example, I use command+num when in chrome on my macbook to change tabs. Why? because it's faster than moving the mouse to a precise point. But, I use the trackpad to scroll on a page because it's faster than using the arrow keys. The same goes for Windows-- I can switch between open windows faster with alt+tab or Win+num than most people can with a mouse.

Being "stuck in the past", for me, has nothing to do with the technology you use, but the way in which you use it. If you're doing things the way that you learned them, even if there is a faster, more efficient way to do it, you're "stuck in the past"...specifically, you're stuck in your own past, when you learned things the first time.

This isn't to say "if you don't use keyboard shortcuts, you suck". It just means sometimes, the right tool for the job is the older one. I don't get a screwdriver to hammer in a nail (I assume screwdrivers are newer than hammers, but I'd actually love to learn more about it if someone can prove me wrong ).

Agreed.

I think the mouse is here to stay for a while, mianly because it's an efficient way to select a tight pixel cluster in an ocean of millions of pixels. Right now my monitor is showing roughly 2 million pixels and I can use a mouse to get within 3-4 pixels of any given point. There's no way I can do that my finger, nor can I imagine a way in which voice would do it well either.

Rather than move to a UI that resembles a hybrid of children's blocks and the Reader's Digest Large Print edition, I'll keep my hi res display with lots of little icons and controls and use my mouse.

Rather than move to a UI that resembles a hybrid of children's blocks and the Reader's Digest Large Print edition, I'll keep my hi res display with lots of little icons and controls and use my mouse.

I assume you're talking about the start screen, but I think that's a slightly different discussion. Not to veer off to much, but saying "I like precise controls" and "I like the Start Screen" are not mutually exclusive. in fact, I happen to like the concept of the Start Screen...maybe not the execution thus far, but the concept is good. The "large button" does little by itself, but it's also populating information all the time, which means it's serves a dual purpose.

The "10-foot-HUD" concept is a good one when displaying information. I used Rainmeter for years to have this kind of stuff populate across my desktop. Now, it can live on it's own screen that I can pop up and pop down with the same key. Seems useful to me, especially if I can modify size/color of widgets and background.

Something I haven't seen any official data on though is the button-size-to-travel-time ratio for this. I'd be interested if seeing if even if one uses a mouse to open programs (which, with contextual search seems like a waste, to me) if selecting from the big buttons is faster than small ones. While mice are designed for precision, sometimes speed of selection is increased with big one. Why be precise when you don't need to be?

Rather than move to a UI that resembles a hybrid of children's blocks and the Reader's Digest Large Print edition, I'll keep my hi res display with lots of little icons and controls and use my mouse.

I assume you're talking about the start screen, but I think that's a slightly different discussion. Not to veer off to much, but saying "I like precise controls" and "I like the Start Screen" are not mutually exclusive. in fact, I happen to like the concept of the Start Screen...maybe not the execution thus far, but the concept is good. The "large button" does little by itself, but it's also populating information all the time, which means it's serves a dual purpose.

The "10-foot-HUD" concept is a good one when displaying information. I used Rainmeter for years to have this kind of stuff populate across my desktop. Now, it can live on it's own screen that I can pop up and pop down with the same key. Seems useful to me, especially if I can modify size/color of widgets and background.

Something I haven't seen any official data on though is the button-size-to-travel-time ratio for this. I'd be interested if seeing if even if one uses a mouse to open programs (which, with contextual search seems like a waste, to me) if selecting from the big buttons is faster than small ones. While mice are designed for precision, sometimes speed of selection is increased with big one. Why be precise when you don't need to be?

I'm curious - what information do you put into the HUD/widget/whatever stuff you have streaming across your desktop. Aside from a clock (which I already have in the taskbar) I never found any piece of info important enough to place on my desktop like that.

I'm curious - what information do you put into the HUD/widget/whatever stuff you have streaming across your desktop. Aside from a clock (which I already have in the taskbar) I never found any piece of info important enough to place on my desktop like that.

I pumped my RSS feeds into it, my school's gmail account (helped keep track of school assignments without having to open up the website, and basic stuff like weather. Plus, clock speed and stuff, but that was just because I think it looks cool.

It'll be interesting to see what Microsoft does end-up delivering in terms of a desktop (computer) experience with Windows 8.

Unless there's a compelling reason to switch (i.e. not just "not worse" or "practically the same" but actually, measurably better) then there's little doubt most current users will stick with Windows 7.

Given current evidence, I agree with those who predict Windows 7 will be the new Windows XP, and it'll be a long time before Microsoft cooks something up that makes a switch worthwhile.

(I, however, will definitely switch, regardless of what Windows 8 ends-up looking like - simply because staying on top of things is part of my job. The vast majority of people are not in that situation.)

And to everyone who has valiantly defended Metro on the desktop: none of you even tried to show that these changes are actually beneficial (for desktop users). I find that telling.

I'm sure you'll be able to add the start button to your task bar in preferences. In fact, I'd be very surprised if that weren't an option.

The whole reason some of us are complaining about the upcoming changes in Windows is that we thought, "Certainly Microsoft will allow for those who find the new Office ribbon interface cumbersome by making it an option... They'd be crazy not to!"

Dark Empath, would you want to describe what exactly it is your job entails? (Job description, type of application usage)

I work for a government regulatory body, I certify foreign medical manufacturers so their products can be sold in Australia.

I use mainly database applications. We have different systems to handle areas that are regulated separately (e.g. medicines and medical devices), but they are linked together with in-house software. These databases are also used to pipe info into MS Office in order to create certificates and licences, and other documentation. We also have government archiving software systems that function separately to the regulatory systems.

Quote:

With all the switching and pinning in Metro, and with the Start Screen snapping you out of whatever context you were in by its full screen behaviour, I can't ever see myself become productive with it.

Umm... I don't know about you, but I spend virtually no time in the start menu. Once an application is launched, it's launched. I work with it. No need to start and stop everything all the time. I don't know where you get all this "switching and pinning in metro". When I do use the start menu, I don't even see it, I hit the windows key and type. There's nothing to actually see when using the start menu. The start screen will actually provide information the start menu doesn't. If I don't care about that information, I can ignore just like I do the start menu. There's no skin off my nose, I don't see how it'll make me less productive.

I cannot fathom how this is a problem. If it's not pinned to the taskbar (which you can do in Win8 as well as 7), you hit the windows key, type the first couple of letters of what you want, and hit enter. Why is the start screen less productive?

If anything, it should be more productive, since hitting it not only gives you access to the same stuff as the start menu, but it actually gives you more information that you can use or ignore.

Quote:

I'd be interested to see some people do some tasks in W7 vs the identical same tasks in W8.

At work, there will be no difference. Win8 has the desktop just like 7. Everything that works in 7 will work just the same in 8.

At home, I have no idea what kind of changes it'll make. I'll have to wait until I use it daily before I can speak authoratively about that. I'm guessing I'll take advantage of the start screen being able to have active tiles displaying info but beyond that, I don't think it'll make much diffence (I'm talking about my desktop here).

Quote:

I think if you're someone who switches applications fast and often, you'll have no use for Metro, and in the worst case it'll even hinder you in being productive.

I do switch applications fast and often. I use alt-tab, that's not changing.

The only thing changing for work use is the start menu.

Quote:

Stop pigeonholing users as "power-users" and "rote-users".

Excuse me? I'm not pigeonholing, they are. The posters that keep claiming Win8 is bad for power users because they won't be able to find anything. I'm saying they're not power users.

It's not a pigeonhole to say they're rote users if changing a menu stops them working, that's what being a rote user means! You may as well claim I'm pigeonholing if I say "black people have dark skin".

Quote:

Why not start handing out some sort of emblem to wear for those who are not worthy to use Windows 8?

No need, they make it clear enough already

Quote:

If Microsoft thinks that alienating a big part of their existing user base will go down well

A vocal minority on a tech site does not a "big part" make.

Quote:

Arrogance and entitlement is not the road Microsoft should have taken.

Speaking of entitlement, that seems to be the road the whiners here have taken.

"Oh no, the document I was looking at is suddenly blocked for a couple of seconds while I look for the other thing I was working on. I'm not comfortable with not seeing what I was just working on".

Ridicule my statement all you want, my point still stands, prove to me that doing a series of tasks a regular programmer does in W7 (fast and often switching), takes equal or less time in Win8. Show me that users won't be frustrated with being limited to one full-screen application at a time (bonus points on a single monitor). Show me that corporate users are just waiting to retrain all their users to work with Windows Fisher Price Phone for Desktops.

You're pretending everything is suddenly going to be Metro overnight. Get real. The desktop is going to be with us for years, maybe decades to come. But in the home user space, it's on it's way out. More and more home users are no longer buying desktops since they've switched to laptops and netbooks. Once tablets become ubiquitous (with a fully functional OS on them) most home users will stop buying laptops and netbooks, too.

On the desktop, just about the only place you'll see Metro is the Start screen. That's it. On tablets, you'll see a lot more Metro.

This can be condensed into "If you want to get anything done, don't use Metro", which is the one thing I'm trying to point out, and now you agree with me?

Dude, if Metro works for you, great, use it. If Metro doesn't work for you, great, don't use it. Win8 provides both styles of interface. That's the point. You keep trying to dumb things down to "one size fits all", then you complain that it doesn't fit all sizes. You're tilting at windmills.

If you're using a literal "you" in your above quote, then guys from belgium shouldn't use Metro. If you're using a figurative "you" above, then use what works. I have no idea what you're complaining about. Alex has pointed out where you're wrong a few times, and all you can do is move the goalposts and keep complaining.

As I said, I find it ironic that you are encouraging a keyboard over a mouse and yet think I'm clinging to the past.

My point was that the functions of the mouse can be duplicated by other means, but a keyboard cannot. While I don't like touch and avoid it where I can, it works well enough for most people, and I'm not limited to touch as an alternative (hence my comment "What the mouse does today can be replaced by combinations of touch, gesture, voice, motion, etc").

Maybe I oversimplified when I said you were clinging to the past, but your posts implied the mouse was irreplaceable, or some kind of pinnacle of input device. It will always have its niche, and even that niche is many years away, but it's already in decline. You might say we've reached "peak mouse".

Quote:

The means by which a person selects an onscreen control may change from mouse to [other thing], but the underlying functionality of selection will be unchanged. Maybe it will be a fingertip, a finger motion, voice, whatever. But I can tell you what it won't be - the keyboard.

Eventually, even the keyboard will die, yes, but it's going to be with us long after the mouse is buried. You say input may be from a fingertip or finger motion, but that tip or motion still has to select something - and a keyboard or proto-keyboard or post-keyboard or keyscreen or keymap or holokey or keysomething is what is going to be used to accept that input. That is, until we control our PCs directly with our mind. And that's a looong way off. I don't think I'll be around to see it.

Here's an idea. What you post on the internet is effectively eternal, right? I'm going to make the prediction that the mouse will die before I do, and the keyboard will not. That is, the mouse will be well and truly a relic of the past within 40-50 years, whereas the keyboard will not be.

It's priceless to see as these 2-3 Microsoft cheerleaders are literally SWEATING all over these pages when trying to convince people that 'noooo, it's NOT SHIT, it's just you and your bad habits and un-MS behavior and you need to change and you will like it!"

Oh God, you guys are truly pathetic - and just making our case (totally out-of-touch MS and these lunatic changes) even more obvious.

Dude, take your lithium, and sit quietly for a while. Take deep breaths.

It's priceless to see as these 2-3 Microsoft cheerleaders are literally SWEATING all over these pages when trying to convince people that 'noooo, it's NOT SHIT, it's just you and your bad habits and un-MS behavior and you need to change and you will like it!"

Oh God, you guys are truly pathetic - and just making our case (totally out-of-touch MS and these lunatic changes) even more obvious.

See folks, everyone hates the fact that companies add their product name to the signature file, but this is exactly why me using a "-sent from my Macbook Air" signature on every post could actually be useful.

Also, I believe you're mistaken as to the definition of the word "literally". For example, Windows 8 is not shit, literally. See, in my example, "literally" is used correctly. Because while it might be shit, metaphorically speaking, it certainly is not actually made of feces.

EDIT-Sent from my MacBook Air.

I swear I don't know this guy...

...yet any post he makes just proves our point further and further...

A]...how utterly out-of-touch, clueless these MS girls are/

(Upside of this is that he is very funny at his truly hilarious patronizing attempt - you really did not understand why I used literally and how is it perfectly correct there? Amazing, just amazing. )

It's priceless to see as these 2-3 Microsoft cheerleaders are literally SWEATING all over these pages when trying to convince people that 'noooo, it's NOT SHIT, it's just you and your bad habits and un-MS behavior and you need to change and you will like it!"

Oh God, you guys are truly pathetic - and just making our case (totally out-of-touch MS and these lunatic changes) even more obvious.

Dude, take your lithium, and sit quietly for a while. Take deep breaths.

...

There, is that better?

Ah, clever, very original - at least as much as anything Microsoft managed to throw up in Windows 8.

(Pssst: if someone needs to take a fuckin chill pill it's you, Einstein - you are vomiting all over this topic for DAYS now, as a one-man Ballmer-Sinofsky defense unit. Yes, you are that ridiculous.)

I think the mouse is here to stay for a while, mianly because it's an efficient way to select a tight pixel cluster in an ocean of millions of pixels. Right now my monitor is showing roughly 2 million pixels and I can use a mouse to get within 3-4 pixels of any given point. There's no way I can do that my finger, nor can I imagine a way in which voice would do it well either.

I'm actually quite uncoordinated with a mouse, I use a keyboard to control selection when I need accuracy (or I zoom WAY in so I can be clumsy without selecting the wrong pixels in photos, etc).

I can imagine a Kinect-style input when my left hand gestures control sensitivity/zoom, and my right hand gestures control selection (mouse style). I dunno what's coming, but at least things are finally changing. The current input styles have been great, but technology needs to move on.

The first "PC" I ever had was the Commodore Vic 20. Some of it's simple games used a "paddle", kind of a half mouse. It controlled only 1 dimension, left-right OR up-down (think "Pong" or "Space Invaders"). Mice control 2 dimensions, left-right AND up-down. I had a paddle for about 5 years. I've had mice for over 20. I'm about ready for the next input device that moves us forward again.

This can be condensed into "If you want to get anything done, don't use Metro", which is the one thing I'm trying to point out, and now you agree with me?

Dude, if Metro works for you, great, use it. If Metro doesn't work for you, great, don't use it. Win8 provides both styles of interface. That's the point.

That's the fuckin point, Einstein: we do not have the Start Menu anymore so if I hate Metro - not a hard thing to do, it's a useless, utter shit and fugly on top of that - I'm stuck with nothing but your idiotic, suggestions about changing my workflow, only to match Sinofsky's super-retarded UI ideas.

And to everyone who has valiantly defended Metro on the desktop: none of you even tried to show that these changes are actually beneficial (for desktop users). I find that telling.

Metro doesn't need to be beneficial for desktop users, it just needs to not be a hindrance, which it isn't. Your Win7-style desktop is still there! Metro isn't designed for the desktop, and that's why the standard desktop is still a part of Windows 8.

So far all the complaints I've heard are either unfounded, or are basically "it's ugly". Yeah, the developers preview IS ugly. But you know what? My Win7 desktop isn't blue. The taskbar and window borders are all "slate", and the wallpaper is a dark monochrome photo of a streetlight in a creepy street. Default Win7 is ugly, but it only stays that way if you want it to.

if someone needs to take a fuckin chill pill it's you, Einstein - you are vomiting all over this topic for DAYS now, as a one-man Ballmer-Sinofsky defense unit. Yes, you are that ridiculous.)

Ok, that's it. You have contributed nothing to this forum. While many of us are guilty of posting childish and abusive rants on occassion, that's all you seem to post. I'm quite disappointed the mods haven't banned you yet for trolling and flaming and bringing down the tone of the entire thread.

Pushing efficiency at the expense of discoverability is kind of idiotic since software design doesn't make them mutually exclusive. People who want to emphasize efficiency should be able to customize the interface with option settings but deciding that there is only One Right Way that everyone will be forced into is far and away Apple's worst habit, is the reason I won't use their hardware, and I'm sad to see Microsoft continue to copy it.

Totally agree with this (though I do own and use some Apple hardware). Not having keyboard shortcuts to most things is one of the most aggravating aspects of OS X, and it's crazy that Windows is heading in that direction. Office's enforcement of the ribbon interface on users who long ago learned much more efficient ways to use these applications is completely nonsensical. I've no faith that Microsoft won't make the same mistake with Windows8/Metro.

with a quick google search i found the list (from apple) of OS keyboard shortcuts for mac OS i count 219 for just the OS itself. that is not including the further keyboard shortcuts for OS applications like Finder (Mac equivalent of Explorer) but just for example sake there are 89 (easily findable) additional Finder specific keyboard shortcuts... not having keyboard shortcuts in OS X are you kidding me?! i almost exclusively use keyboard shortcuts on my 17" MBP. actually does windows allow you to create custom automated actions for file manipulations and bind it to a keyboard shortcut without third party software? where is your recursively rename and sequentially number, or your create 3 different sized thumbnails and save them in independent folders in 4 different file formats each keyboard shortcut gods now? lol.

No, AngryChris, that really doesn't help. Come over here by the campfire and I'll tell you a story...

Back in The Olden Days, when Windows was still relatively new and there were still plenty of people stuck in DOS, both Microsoft and IBM came up with this thing called "User Interface Guidelines". Actually, I think there was a different name for it, as they were more "requirements" than "guidelines"... Oh yeah, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access

Anyway, the purpose of this thing was to provide a consistent set of interfaces for most programs. Things that you may think of as "Windows shortcuts", like Ctrl-Ins for "Copy" and Shift-Ins for "Paste", were specified here way back when. It not only set basic expectations for what basic keys did what basic commands, but it also made it clear that you should be able to operate programs with or without a mouse.

Now, it made a lot of sense to be able to get by without a mouse in those early days, since you couldn't really take it for granted that everyone would have one, but the specification had another (possibly unintended) benefit: those people who took the time to learn how to navigate the desktop and applications using the keyboard could be dramatically more efficient than they ever could be if stuck switching between the keyboard and mouse.

So, the CUA standards stuck around all through the development of that DOS shell known as Windows versions 1 through 3, on through the ill-fated OS/2, past Windows NT, and so on all the way up until our lovely Windows 7 today.

You have to understand that there weren't just *some* shortcuts for *some* programs. *Every* function in *every* program could be accessed through the keyboard (within reason, of course - AutoCAD couldn't be fully operated with a keyboard alone...) To this very day, you can start Windows, launch Microsoft Word, type a letter, print it, and shut down Windows without ever touching a mouse. Not that you'd necessarily *want* to do that, but you can if you want to, and there are definitely portions of that workflow that will go by much more quickly with the keyboard than fumbling with the mouse.

On top of all that, these operations are/were a.) documented, b.) consistent, c.) visually indicated by the user interface. The little underline under a letter in every menu option of a program told you that hitting the Alt key plus the underlined key would give you that function. Hitting the Tab key would take you step-by-step through every control within a program's window. Etc.

No version of Mac OS has ever had anything like this. Not this consistent. Not this complete.

As I said, you can still do a lot of this stuff with the keyboard, but little by little, Microsoft has been getting lazy or outright eliminating our ability to get by without a mouse. There are standard portions of Windows now that either cannot be operated without reaching for the mouse, or make it very difficult to do so.

Most people probably didn't care much when Microsoft turned off the Alt-key underlines in menus by default. It wasn't that big a deal for power users, since you still have the option to turn that feature back on. The problem is that it now makes it much less likely that new users will ever pick up those shortcuts, since there's no indication in the UI that there's anything there to learn. And, predictably, programmers/designers are not putting the shortcuts in there at all in an increasing number of cases.

Now... who was it hurting to have keyboard accessibility for 90% of Windows programs and functions? No one. It wasn't in the way of anyone who didn't know how to or didn't want to use that functionality. And yet it was a definite benefit for those of us who were familiar with it.

This functionality is being eroded little by little by Microsoft - the company that's supposed to be all about power/business/serious use (at least when compared to Apple's focus on more casual users).

Now, the biggest step backward in interface efficiency came with the introduction of Office's (in)famous ribbon interface. The ribbon interface was/is a mistake for these reasons:

1.) As everyone goes to great lengths to point out, it doesn't add functionality that wasn't already there.2.) It doesn't make tools easier to find, as you're basically still having to go through several tabs/menus searching for the operation you need until you've memorized the location of that tool/operation within the interface.AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:3.) It greatly reduces or eliminates the shortcuts to efficiency we had available to us in the older interface, and makes it less likely that frequent users will discover the remaining shortcuts through simple exposure to the interface. For no good reason. It would've taken very little effort to leave the menu-driven interface there for those users who prefer it and don't need screen space taken up by lots of icons. It could've even been done in a way that resulted in nearly zero additional work for application programmers.

And the benefit of this lowered productivity? The only benefit I can see is that the ribbon is more "encouraging" of exploration. I can see how neophyte users might see it as less "threatening" than a straight text-menu-based interface.

That's it. We still have a ton of options (you have to unless you reduce the features in the program). We still have to poke around to find stuff. Many features that were no more or less hidden than other features in the interface are now behind some little grey box or tiny, nondescript corner.

But I digress... I could go on about the drawbacks of the ribbon interface for hours...

The reason the ribbon interface is particularly important to people like me is that it highlights Microsoft's surprising willingness to sacrifice the needs/desires of its "power users" for those of new users. And I think many of us see Metro as Ribbon Interface 2.0. What functionality is Microsoft going to throw out for the sake of an interface purportedly better for new users?

Personally, I have no problem with change - at least not when it makes sense. I welcome it. I use Windows, Mac and Linux desktops every week because I enjoy seeing how different groups are tackling different user interface issues. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and having all three of these, and other, smaller players around is a benefit to us all.

I'm not going to blindly celebrate change for its own sake, though. All I see with Metro is Microsoft making the same dumb assumptions it made for the last 15+ years, only in reverse. The same dumb assumptions that allowed Apple to come in and sweep up the entire industry in the course of 24 months. It's the big lie that Microsoft keeps telling itself: Windows Everywhere™ Is What People Want.

Anyway... Maybe all this worry is for nothing, and Microsoft will continue to serve the needs of power users while trying (desperately... embarrassingly some might say...) to appeal to a wider audience in the same way Apple does. I doubt it, though. Microsoft has given many of us good reason to worry about the direction(s) it's going in.

I really doubt anyone has read all of this, but I have to say that writing it all down was really cathartic... :D

wait did you seriously just reference a user interfacing standard developed in 1987 to tell someone how wrong they are about current user interfacing standards?! your age and lack of adaptability is showing man. the CUA profile may have been used in some ways since then and i am sure that a few remnants remain across all platforms. but why the hell would competing companies use a profile that was created by their "competitor" for a platform that currently holds less than 1% of current market?

And to everyone who has valiantly defended Metro on the desktop: none of you even tried to show that these changes are actually beneficial (for desktop users). I find that telling.

Metro doesn't need to be beneficial for desktop users, it just needs to not be a hindrance, which it isn't.

Wrong. It is a hindrance in numerous different ways on the desktop computer. It is distracting. It is an inefficient waste of space. And it requires drastically different ways to use it that go against well-ingrained brain muscle.To overcome all of that, it damn well needs to be very beneficial to users. And it isn't.

Quote:

Your Win7-style desktop is still there! Metro isn't designed for the desktop, and that's why the standard desktop is still a part of Windows 8.

Then why are we forced to use metro on the desktop computer? Or can I still access the old start menu to use apps, the search engine, or control panel, all without being drawn into the metro start menu? In other words, after the initial boot, I should not have to see metro again after I go to the win 7 desktop?If the answers to those questions is still no, then your above answer is nonsense.

And my VM of Win 8 is already telling me the answer is 'no'.

Quote:

So far all the complaints I've heard are either unfounded, or are basically "it's ugly". Yeah, the developers preview IS ugly. But you know what? My Win7 desktop isn't blue. The taskbar and window borders are all "slate", and the wallpaper is a dark monochrome photo of a streetlight in a creepy street. Default Win7 is ugly, but it only stays that way if you want it to.

It does not compliment it in the least. You are correct though -- one size does not fit all. Which is Microsoft's primary mistake here. They should not be cramming a touch interface onto a desktop computer that is normally controlled by WIMP.

All of you Metro/Win8 defenders are adopting the same nonsensical position, wherein you (very angrily and defensively) argue that whatever elements have been removed or obscured either 1) are still available (in a roundabout or hidden fashion) or 2) are not necessary (i.e. those who want them back, are suffering from out-of-date historical biases).

And nobody can answer the basic Metro-on-the-desktop question: What's the point?

Never mind rebutting the negative arguments. Where are the positive arguments? What problem does this solve? What purpose does it serve?

And, by the way, comparisons to Apple's new desktop OS offerings (which feature elements borrowed from iOS) are also nonsensical, because they overlook the fact that iOS is popular. Bringing swipes, notifications etc. from iOS to the Mac makes sense because millions and millions of users love those features and welcome them to the desktop, where they (at least seem to) legitimately augment the desktop functionality.

I ask again: what's the point of Metro on the desktop in lieu of the Start menu, or in any other incarnation? Why is it there?

I really wish MS shills would stop making idiotic claims especially ones that fly in the face of the fuckin reality.

The painful reality is that [b]MS is fuckin taking away our everyday Start Menu/Button - and some idiots call it adding funtionality.

That's the fuckin painful reality, indeed.

I have a question for you. What is taken away aside from a graphic on your screen? What is taken away?

Dear,

did you fuckin manage to read what I wrote above?

I read it. I asked what was taken away. You said "the start button/menu". By that, do you mean:1) The graphical image of the button2) The functionality of the start menu3) Someplace to click to initiate the start menu4) All of the above5) Something else

Quote:

Quote:

Did you actually read the article? Have you used the new Start screen? Or are you just bandwagoning the seemingly cyclic Microsoft hate every time they announce a new OS version?

Are you actually fuckin joking with me or you are really this unbelievably ignorant about this issue?

I'm questioning your ignorance. Because, according to my list up above:1) Was removed2) Still exists3) Still exists

So all we lost was a picture. If you like looking at it, then sure, I feel your loss. But I'm not losing sleep over a UI change when the user experience has not (at least, in the way you described).

If they removed the Start menu itself, then I'd be upset. That is, unless they replaced it with something better. Like when they replaced the Program Manager in Windows 3.x with the desktop and taskbar.

Quote:

Quote:

It seems that Dark Empath's assertion about "power users" on this site rings true, very true indeed.

QFT:

Dark Empath wrote:

This is something that is becoming very clear while reading these comments - not many people that consider themselves "power users" really are "power users". Anybody that's going to be completey thrown and put off by a menu being replaced by a ribbon is not a power user - they're a "by rote" user.

He's a fulltime MS cheerleader here and as such he is COMPLETELY FULL OF IT.

Unless you are another one of him you cannot seriously claim his hialriously BS claims have anything to do with reality, can you, son?

PS: I tried to use this PoS called Windows 8 Developer Preview for DAYS - and I concluded that if someone was relying on his Start MEnu to quickly launch things - you know "Pin to Start Menu", just typing the name into the search field etc - it's IMPOSSIBLE TO WORK WITH THIS UTTER JUNK called Windows 8.

But you can do both of those things... You an still pin to the start menu or type the name into the search field.

All of you Metro/Win8 defenders are adopting the same nonsensical position, wherein you (very angrily and defensively) argue that whatever elements have been removed or obscured either 1) are still available (in a roundabout or hidden fashion) or 2) are not necessary (i.e. those who want them back, are suffering from out-of-date historical biases).

And nobody can answer the basic Metro-on-the-desktop question: What's the point?

Never mind rebutting the negative arguments. Where are the positive arguments? What problem does this solve? What purpose does it serve?

Easier to use (the targets are easier to hit), easier to extend (due to live tiles, pluggable search), easier to browse (due to the abandonment of the awful inline-expansion thing, and the addition of things like semantic zoom)?

All of you Metro/Win8 defenders are adopting the same nonsensical position, wherein you (very angrily and defensively) argue that whatever elements have been removed or obscured either 1) are still available (in a roundabout or hidden fashion) or 2) are not necessary (i.e. those who want them back, are suffering from out-of-date historical biases).

The Windows key is not "obscured" or "hidden", in my opinion. There is only ONE thing that anyone has been able to say they "want back" (and actually, it was something that I brought up- the ability to see a list of "recently used" programs. If there is something else "missing", please point me to it. [/quote]

Quote:

And nobody can answer the basic Metro-on-the-desktop question: What's the point?

To present a single, unified interface that a person who uses Windows 8 in one place can recognize when using mobile devices? Since Windows 8 keeps all of your settings online, when you put an icon in a certain place on your desktop, it'll be in the EXACT SAME SPOT on your tablet. I mean, that's the common-sense answer, I think.

Quote:

Never mind rebutting the negative arguments. Where are the positive arguments? What problem does this solve? What purpose does it serve?

Unification of the interfaces, as above, and the promulgation of a new runtime across multiple architectures. This is the a way of providing the same functionality, adding in the display of more information (a la WP7), adding in OS-level features like contracts, and making all of these present on the same screen.

Quote:

And, by the way, comparisons to Apple's new desktop OS offerings (which feature elements borrowed from iOS) are also nonsensical, because they overlook the fact that iOS is popular. Bringing swipes, notifications etc. from iOS to the Mac makes sense because millions and millions of users love those features and welcome them to the desktop, where they (at least seem to) legitimately augment the desktop functionality.

I ask again: what's the point of Metro on the desktop in lieu of the Start menu, or in any other incarnation? Why is it there?

I...um...answer again? We can debate whether it's effective, but the goal itself is pretty simple- create something that is CONSTANT, even when moving between devices, and to maintain the same functionality, even if it looks differently. Again, I think their goal is easy enough to decipher.

All of you Metro/Win8 defenders are adopting the same nonsensical position, wherein you (very angrily and defensively) argue that whatever elements have been removed or obscured either 1) are still available (in a roundabout or hidden fashion) or 2) are not necessary (i.e. those who want them back, are suffering from out-of-date historical biases).

The Windows key is not "obscured" or "hidden", in my opinion. There is only ONE thing that anyone has been able to say they "want back" (and actually, it was something that I brought up- the ability to see a list of "recently used" programs. If there is something else "missing", please point me to it.

Quote:

And nobody can answer the basic Metro-on-the-desktop question: What's the point?

To present a single, unified interface that a person who uses Windows 8 in one place can recognize when using mobile devices? Since Windows 8 keeps all of your settings online, when you put an icon in a certain place on your desktop, it'll be in the EXACT SAME SPOT on your tablet. I mean, that's the common-sense answer, I think.

Quote:

Never mind rebutting the negative arguments. Where are the positive arguments? What problem does this solve? What purpose does it serve?

Unification of the interfaces, as above, and the promulgation of a new runtime across multiple architectures. This is the a way of providing the same functionality, adding in the display of more information (a la WP7), adding in OS-level features like contracts, and making all of these present on the same screen.

Quote:

And, by the way, comparisons to Apple's new desktop OS offerings (which feature elements borrowed from iOS) are also nonsensical, because they overlook the fact that iOS is popular. Bringing swipes, notifications etc. from iOS to the Mac makes sense because millions and millions of users love those features and welcome them to the desktop, where they (at least seem to) legitimately augment the desktop functionality.

I ask again: what's the point of Metro on the desktop in lieu of the Start menu, or in any other incarnation? Why is it there?

I...um...answer again? We can debate whether it's effective, but the goal itself is pretty simple- create something that is CONSTANT, even when moving between devices, and to maintain the same functionality, even if it looks differently. Again, I think their goal is easy enough to decipher.

So unlike Peter Bright, you don't have an answer that's intrinsic to the desktop? In other words, as you see it, the desktop advantage(s) to Metro over Win7 is/are solely definable in terms of relationships between devices?

It has no Start menu, but it does have a "Windows"-branded Start button in the bottom left corner. Hitting that takes me to the Metro screen.

Is this the version the article's discussing? Because the article discusses "leaked screenshots," implying that the new Start-button-free interface is not available yet and therefore cannot have been used by anyone posting here, arguing in either direction.

In other words, all of you saying that removing the Start button won't make any productivity difference are only guessing, right? (As are those of us arguing the other direction.)

Once the installation was over, I was looking at a blank desktop. At any time in the past 15 years, the next step would be to hit the Start button and see a new version of the Start menu, with the Office applications all stacked up in the leftmost column, and with a "New Office Document" command at the top of the menu.

But with Windows 8, that's all gone: all I can do is hit the "Windows" icon (where the Start button used to be) and have the entire desktop replaced with the new Metro screen. HUGE buttons say things like "News" (with an RSS icon), Weather, Stocks, Tweet, etc. I have to scroll five screen to the right to see the icons for the Office applications, each of which is presented in a huge square that nevertheless is not large enough to display the entire name of the application ("Microsoft Office Picture Manager" becomes "Microsoft Office Picture...") I can hover over them to see the whole name, but there's no way to get a list view or details view. I am aware that I can slide these icons to the left (laboriously, one by one) and get them onto my leftmost pane/screen/whatever, but that's inconvenient. Using the arrow keys doesn't swipe pane by pane, but square icon by square icon. I have to scroll through four pages of square icons (and what is all this stuff? "Treehouse Stampede!"; "NearMe"; "MeasureIt"; etc.) to get to the Office icons I just installed.

Putting this as calmly as I can: I have great difficulty imagining myself or anyone else actually working this way. If there was a way to bring back the efficient little Start menu, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Metro doesn't need to be beneficial for desktop users, it just needs to not be a hindrance, which it isn't.

Wrong. It is a hindrance in numerous different ways on the desktop computer. It is distracting.

Um... it's not distracting, and it's not an inefficient waste of space, because it isn't there. It's a desktop. Just like you have now (albeit without the start button).

Quote:

And it requires drastically different ways to use it that go against well-ingrained brain muscle.

Not in my experience. Are you still doing things the old XP way? Clicking through level after level of start menu layers? It's about time you caught up to the 21st century.

I don't mean to be nasty or anything, but if you're still doing things the Win95 way, I have very little sympathy for you, and I'm glad MS isn't crippling it's OS to keep you happy.

Quote:

Quote:

Your Win7-style desktop is still there! Metro isn't designed for the desktop, and that's why the standard desktop is still a part of Windows 8.

Then why are we forced to use metro on the desktop computer?

You're not. Just use it like you would Win7. And if somebody offers you a Metro app, just say "no"

Quote:

Or can I still access the old start menu to use apps, the search engine, or control panel, all without being drawn into the metro start menu?

For a start, I have no idea why you think you're going to spend all day in the start menu, or even in control panel. I haven't been in the control panel since I was forced to by XP. You want to uninstall a program? Hit the windows key and type "unin" and it's there. Want to show file extensions in a folder? Hit the windows key and type "fol" and the options are there. Want to disable autoplay? Hit the windows key and type "aut" and it's there.

It's been this way for half a decade. It's about time you caught up. Windows 8 isn't changing anything. What are you gonna do for an encore, complain that you can't see the Win 3.1 window manager because of Metro?

Quote:

In other words, after the initial boot, I should not have to see metro again after I go to the win 7 desktop?If the answers to those questions is still no, then your above answer is nonsense.

If you want to keep using Windows XP, then keep using it. Us youngsters will point and laugh at you.

Quote:

And my VM of Win 8 is already telling me the answer is 'no'.

You VM of a pre-beta developer's preview is telling you no.

But then again, if I saw your Vista or Win7 install, I'll bet you're using a crippled "classic" start menu, amirite? Yeah, we should all pander to your obsolete sensibilities.